Amtrak average equipment age is over 28 years old

[bikkuri bahn]

http://www.mmdnewswire.com/amtrak-issues-updated-fleet-strategy-plan-107337.html

[Guest ___]

Nothing new there. Having met with the current head of Amtrak recently at a NARP event at Union station DC, a lot of this road map will be contingent as to what powers may be in place in Congress after the election. With the FY 2013 budget nearing, and while dedicated funding has been made to Amtrak, it doesn't mean it won't get yanked at the last minute.

[Mudkip Orange]

a lot of this road map will be contingent as to what powers may be in place in Congress after the election.

 

Yup.

 

Remember kids, when you head to the polling place, just look for the letter next to the guy's name. D, D, D, D, D, D... if you give a shit at all.

[Guest ___]

I disagree with that. I've been here in DC most of my life, the are plenty of Republicans that vote for transit, and even Amtrak, not as many in recent years. Historically in the past Republicans were very transit friendly on both the federal level as well as on the state level, (MD, VA).

 

Transit promotes economic growth, promotes biz, both big and small. The great argument in the past ten years Republicans make against Amtrak is its lack of accountability to the public, and low ROI. Regardless of the party at the end of the day, regardless if you're a jackass or a big fat elephant, the way members of Congress vote is not based on Joe-Schuck but rather which lobbyist owns that person.

 

(A few of the Republicans that are currently pro-Amtrak, happen to sit on the boards for WABTEC and Bombardier Americas, whom I both met recently.)

[spacecadet]

The great argument in the past ten years Republicans make against Amtrak is its lack of accountability to the public, and low ROI.

 

Past ten years??  The first Republican to propose $0 funding for Amtrak was Ronald Reagan in 1985:  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-05-12/travel/8501290967_1_long-distance-trains-amtrak-washington-corridor

 

This has been par for the course for Republicans ever since, and the arguments have never changed.  In the end, realizing they won't kill Amtrak in whatever current budget is being considered, their strategy has been to bleed Amtrak dry until the public becomes so fed up with it that they don't notice or care when it goes away.  So Amtrak asks for what they need, the Republicans propose $0 as their negotiating start point, and the middle ground that's agreed to ends up being about 50% of what's required just to keep the system maintained properly. And that's why we have 28 year old rolling stock.

 

Sure, there may be a few Republicans here and there who vote otherwise, just like there are a few Democrats who vote to cut taxes on the wealthy. These exceptions don't mean anything in terms of what the party as a whole actually stands for.

 

Of course, the Dems aren't blameless either, because like in almost everything else, they're perfectly happy to roll over and accept these laughable subsidy levels in the name of "compromise".  This is like "compromising" with a serial killer over how many people to kill.  Meanwhile, congress could instead cut 1.4% of the defense budget and fund the entirety of Amtrak's request and we'd have a half-decent national rail system.  If they went nuts and cut 5.7% of the defense budget for *one year*, we'd have at least one fully paid for honest-to-goodness high speed rail corridor.

 

Amtrak's current order for new equipment was basically rammed through by the current management, who finally came to their senses and realized they can't rely on politicians to properly fund national transportation unless they're forced to. So they placed the equipment order before they had the money, with the plan of basically sending the bill to congress once it's already done and there's no going back. That's the only way to get anything done in this country when it comes to transportation.